If you are not confused about “global warming”, you probably have not paid much attention to the news. The Senate is in the midst of a debate about to what extent government should take over the American economy in the name of climate change. They are concerned about carbon, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). Or at least they claim that they are.

Some activists are anxious to bring down capitalism, destroy the oil companies and return to a more peaceful, non-industrial world. Others want to restrain our economy in the name of redistributing world income — in the belief that it simply isn’t fair that America is a rich country. It is not only complicated, but all is not as it seems.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. (Bill O’ Reilly, pay attention). Remember your high-school biology. You breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants take in CO2 and release oxygen. Carbon dioxide is essential to life. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it makes plants grow more rapidly and makes them more resistant to drought or other adverse conditions. CO2 represents about 0.038 percent of greenhouse gasses, which are composed mostly of water vapor. In other words, CO2, a tiny part of the atmosphere, is a great benefit to the earth. It helps crops grow to feed a hungry world. But…?

Scientists have found that increases in CO2 follow warming, and thus cannot be the cause of warming. They have found that most of the atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans, not from SUV tailpipes. When the oceans warm in a century long process, they release CO2. When the oceans cool, they take in CO2.

Dr. Tim Ball came up with an analogy that explains things to us non-scientists. He said that attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to:

trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel, which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut, which represents the human contribution.

So what is the use of laws that would cause cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030? Annual job losses. The average household would pay $467 more each year for natural gas and electricity. The price of gas and food would rise even more. All this to restrain human production of CO2. (And CO2 is a benefit to the world)

If all the cap-and-trade proposals and all the regulations were to work, the difference in CO2 in the atmosphere would be too slight to measure. (And CO2 is a benefit to the world)

Environmental activists are pulling out all stops to influence Congress to pass this dreadful bill. They are passionate and angry. They don’t care about CO2. They care about eliminating industry which they feel despoils the world, in favor of smaller, more local business. They want more government control to bring about the Utopian society they envision. They want more world government, acceptance of the world court, more control by the United Nations. They like more ‘natural’ sources of energy like wind and solar. Never mind that wind only blows occasionally and must have gas or coal powered electricity as a backup or that solar energy takes unacceptably vast acreage for solar collectors.

They want fewer people. The most extreme are anti-human. Others want to herd us all into dense cities so that the rest of the land can be returned to nature, to wilderness. They attract billions of dollars in donations from people influenced by pictures of baby animals and beautiful forests, and a desire to be good to the environment.

The billions of dollars go to lawsuits, lobbying and fundraising. The object is to deprive Americans of their freedom, their property and their way of life.

The Supreme Court has rejected Democrats ridiculous claims that requiring voters to show identification, proving they are actually entitled to vote, is somehow unfair to minorities, the elderly or the poor. The 6-3 decision upholds an Indiana law intended to prevent vote fraud.

The Indiana law was passed in 2005. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed it as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage groups of voters who tend to prefer Democrats.

Word was that Elliot Spitzer was withholding his resignation in an attempt to use it to finagle a plea-bargain with the feds. I don’t see how with such a seemingly clear-cut case against him, he had a leg to stand on, nevertheless, stranger things have happened.

I’m glad to see the government didn’t play along:

It was a rare and unequivocal declaration by U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia: “There is no agreement between this office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, relating to his resignation or any other matter.”

It would have been outrageous had they. Fortunately, Spitzer faces the following possible charges:

Money laundering for trying to conceal the source and recipient of financial transactions.

Tax evasion, if he was a knowing party to an all-cash business that wasn’t filing taxes.

Violation of the Mann Act for paying for the trip from New York to D.C. by the call girl known as “Kristen.”

Misuse of state resources, if he used his state-issued credit card for hotels or meals with prostitutes as well as if he was being protected by State Troopers during his dalliances.

And finally, soliciting prostitution.

There’s also the question of whether Spitzer used campaign funds for these trysts, which opens up a whole other litany of charges from fraud to federal election violations. [read more]

The law of supply and demand really is very simple.The price of any good or service is determined by how much people want it and how available it is. The more available it is, the less it will cost; the less available, the more it will cost.

The price of oil, for example, is skyrocketing because demand is skyrocketing. As trade is raising the standard of living in countries like China and India, more people are using more energy, so the demand increases and the price goes with it.

Republicans understand this.

That is why when Republicans were in charge they offered tax-breaks to oil companies if they would do certain things to increase the supply of oil and gasoline.

Democrats either don’t understand the law of supply and demand, or they simply don’t care. I suspect its a combination of the two.

Democrats have just passed another “energy” bill that does absolutely nothing to increase the supply of energy or bring the prices of energy down. On the contrary, they have voted to raise taxes on oil companies and take away the incentives to increase supply.

This means the price of gas will go up as oil companies pass their increased tax burden on to the consumer, and will go up even more as they scale back their efforts to increase supply.

Democrats did this despite the news that gas prices could reach $4 per gallon in some places next summer because of the increasing demand on crude oil. Lets be clear about that, the increased costs Democrats voted for would be on top of the $4/gallon price.

But the stupidity of the bill doesn’t end there.

The Democrats’ bill would also increase subsidies for ethanol and other “biofuels”. The problem with this (well, there are many problems with this), but the biggest problem is that when government creates artificial demand for ethanol, then the companies that make ethanol increase the demand for corn (which is used to make ethanol).

So, the price of corn goes up.

Not only does this raise the price of foods made from corn — i.e. cereals, tortillas, etc. But animals also eat corn. So the price goes up on chicken, eggs, milk, beef, you name it.

Virtually all the inflation you’ve noticed at the supermarket can be attributed to the increased cost of oil and the increased cost of corn because of “biofuel” subsidies. And Democrats just voted to increase the cost of both gas and groceries even more.

But the stupidity doesn’t end there!

The new taxes on oil companies only apply to domestic oil companies. Which means this bill will lower the amount of oil and gas we produce ourselves, and increase our dependence on foreign oil!

Plus, ethanol and other “biofuels” cost more to produce than oil, require far more land to produce than oil (it would take every single acre of farmland in the United States plus another 50 percent to make enough ethanol to replace oil), take far more energy to produce than oil, and deliver far less energy than oil. All of which means “biofuels” are actually worse for the planet!

Keep all this in mind when President Bush vetoes the bill. No doubt Democrats will demonize him for doing so, but they will be lying, as usual.